Posted by
FeargalX on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:41:48 PM
The values that caused me to identify myself as a conservative have changed so much that I doubt that I could ever again trust the American Conservative movement.
I became a conservative in the 1980s because of the strong opposition that conservatives had to communism. Many liberals either excused communist activities or denied attrocities existed. In this vein, freedom of expression, a fair criminal justice system and the foundation for free choice made the West -- and especially America appealing. Conservatism was also an important concept to me in that it stood for a climate of individuality rather than collectivism. In that way, my brand of conservatism was open to new ideas (while not necessarily open to radical implementation). That is, it was always against my 'conservative' values to use adhominems or exaggerations to prevent the questioning of a 'sacred idea.'
The conservative movement as it exists today in the United States is a mix of radical ideas, collectivism, high risk gambling, oppressive criminalization of conduct, so-called christian fundamentalist theory mixed with a little 'end times' biblical interpretation, a rejection of imperical evidence, a live for today mindset along with an attitude in which accountability is ignored. While these so-called values have been developed in the modern (post 2000) conservative movement, the other ideas such as the fight against political correctness, emphasis of race over individuality and the idea that our current culture is one that there should be some attempt to retain the good from our culture have gone by the wayside.
In no particular order, I will try to describe the specific issues that American conservatism failed.
1. The Iraq War
This war was clearly unnecessary at the time -- especially since we had not defeated Al Quaeda. Iraq was a secular power that had no link to radical Islam -- but at the same time was a precarious country because like Yugoslavia -- it was an artificial country with rival religious and cultural factions. Anyway, conservatives pushed for this war (apparently) because they though it was going to be easy -- or it would some how help defeat radical Islam. Neither occurred. This war has bankrupted America and strengthened radical Islam. To date, there has been no accountability for the hundreds of billions of wasted funds (as of 2008) and what will eventually be the loss of perhaps trillions of dollars.
This war was very risky (thus inherently not conservative), very costly (thus inherently not conservative) and resulted in those in power not admitting to any accountability (once again rejecting what used to be a conservative value).
Not only those things, but nobody seems to care that Bin Laden almost 7 years after 9/11 is apparently still alive. Hitler -- with a massive military machine which developed jets and rockets, was dead 3 1/2 years after he declared war against the USA. Bin Laden has no such power.
2. Our Health Care System
Conservatives have falsely stated many reasons that we fail to insure so many Americans. The real deal is that because we do not have universal health care service, our health care is much more expensive than other countries. America's government already spends more per capita than almost every country on health care (when you add up what the private sector also spends per capita we easily double the next highest country). How is it that Ireland, France or Great Britain can provide universal health care coverage for less money per person than what America's government spends for covering less than half of its populace?
Health care is much different than consumer items -- so the free market does not 'fix' problems -- instead it can create them. We do not negotiate the costs of a heart attack or an ambulance ride or a broken leg -- these things are treated.
Those who state that the only way to provide universal coverage would mean that our taxes would go up are lying. Why can't we take the best from the 30 or so developed nations that already provide universal coverage? The truth is that we can.
Like Canada and Germany -- I have no problem with Americans also purchasing a private health insurance plan that might get them some benefit that the general system does not.
Conservatives are so beholden to health insurance companies (some of whom would go out of business if we had universal coverage) and play up false fears about the countries that have universal coverage (none of which have gone back to a fully private health care system since adopting them) they engage in rampant fearmongering and lying. But, the bottom line of why it is not conservative is that they push public policy that creates public cost, rather than reducing it.
3. The Conservative's brand of War on Crime
America has a serious crime problem. Predominently, it is a social problem where victims who do not know their perpetrators almost never see their perpetrator prosecuted. This is because these crimes are pretty hard to prosecute. They require lots of investigation -- so it simply will not happen (unless it becomes a high profile case -- like the Duke Lacrosse case -- and when that happens the prosecutors often will screw up pretty badly).
One of the problems with the criminal justice system is that rather than a professional system, it is a political system. That is, by and large almost all local prosecutors are politicians (and in many cases elected ones) rather than committed professionals. In other fields would you think that the doctor you would like to obtain treatment from was not chosen because he was 'popular' or that the design of the bridge you drove on was based upon an election (rather than an engineer's competence). Many other professional fields, while retaining a little bit of politics, are controlled by professional competence. That is not true of the law.
That aspect is one of the serious flaws. Another can be seen with our huge prison population. With such a large prison population (compared with Canada, Australia, Germany or France) you would think that such a dedicated determination to lock up prisoners would mean we live in a safer country. No such luck. So, not only do we spend lots of money on this system (hardly a conservative trait) but we also do not get good results (our crime rate is relatively high for a developed country).
One gaping problem with our criminal justice problem is the "war on drugs" that began almost 40 years ago. Thanks to that policy, police agencies that could spend time preventing serious crime and solving crimes where the perpetrator is not known by the victim spend huge resouces prosecuting people for possession of drugs that many of our great grandparents legally took. While I do not believe all hard drugs should be fully legal, it makes no sense to send someone to prison for using drugs (or eating bad food) (or not getting a check up) (or for that matter for getting drunk everyday). Sure, if you are impacting someone else (ie caring for an infant or driving a car) you should get prosecuted -- but why are we conserned about drug use. As someone who has never used a hard drug -- but has known at least a dozen people who have used them -- I certainly do not advocate snorting coke or heroin -- but really why should be punish people for this?
For years, I worked in the criminal justice field and I saw many crimes committed because people were drunk -- a few because they were coked up or on pcp or a speed drug and almost none while high on pot or heroin. Those addicted to herion or cocaine might commit a crime in order to support addiction -- but the only reason the powder costs a lot is because of the serious criminal treatment. Otherwise, it would cost no more than alchohol -- and I never saw anyone needing to steal to support an alchol addiction. For that, less than $10 can get you a bottle of strong fortefied wine. With cocaine or heroin an addiction can cost hundreds of dollars a day -- an amount that you cannot get by panhandling or working a few hours here and there (or returning recycled cans).
So, the war on drugs -- which has been promoted by conservatives. Has had horrific consequences. There was a glimmer of hope when Rush Limbaugh was caught illegally buying hundreds of pain pills (which he could have been charged with trafficking the drug, but was not) -- that he could have tried to come out and say that our drug laws are wrong. They punish those who need treatment and send non-violent people for prison for years at the expense of not dedicating resources to solving other crimes. Unfortunately, he did not. As an irony of Rush's addiction, near that time Vioxx was taken off the market for causing heart attacks and strokes. After my wife went through a fairly serious surgery rather than prescribe real pain medication -- she got Vioxx (which of course did not help -- it had benefits for osteo arthritic issues).
So, again, thanks to conservatives people in pain (even conservatives) cannot get pain medication because we prosecute our doctors for providing pain medication (but never prosecute them or drug companies for pushing Vioxx).
4. Immigration and Wages
George Bush and many modern conservatives have claimed that there are many jobs that Americans simply will not do. While I am a college graduate with an advanced degree, I spent time as a dish washer and a day-laborer only about 20 years ago. I was not "too good" for those jobs -- too many of the modern conservatives must actually think that they are too good for those jobs. The market will pay for the jobs -- ie -- they will get done if you pay someone what the market will bear. The answer to this is not that we need to drive down labor costs with immigration -- because immigration is not a free ride for the business owner who can pay his laborer less. Society pays many other costs for a low paid immigrant worker.
First, of course it is really not just an issue with Mexico. While Mexicans might be willing to work our agricultural fields for $5 per hour a Chinese laborer might do it for $1 perhaps some in India might perform such labor for less than one dollar an hour. So, if we really want or business owners to pay the lowest price for labor bring over the kind of factories that exist in China -- pay people low wages, with long hours and have them live in housing where the business owns and takes the rent out of the pay.
Anyway, the point I am getting at is that there are a host of social problems that come a long with paying people very low wage rates. For example, today through local ordinances and housing codes we require housing to have indoor plumbing, safe electricity, a maximum number of people residing in one place. All of those rules that exist from places as different as Greenwich, Connecticut and Gary, Indiana -- because of the mandatory cost associated with such amenities -- make it legally impossible to have people to be able to reside in any "normal" housing (housing that is not a shelter of some sort or a YMCA). Having a car in our society is also critical in most places outside of New York City -- but mandatory inspections that exist in many states, emissions testing and our new car requirements make that problematic for the $5 per hour alien worker. So, that worker will drive an unregistered and uninsured car. (In Mexico, the new car autosystem is built in for people who earn $5 per hour -- they sell dozens of different models for as little as $5000 for a new car -- a car that because of our regulations could not be sold in the US).
Now a conservative (or maybe even more so a libertarian) would likely say -- see, these regulations are bad, we should get rid of them. While merits of individual regulations are capable of being debated our society is not going to get rid of all housing codes, residency restrictions, auto registration regulatioins, auto inspection regulations and new car regulations overnight -- especailly since conservatives are not really focused on this anyway (and if they are smart, they would understand that those regulations benefit society -- and in some cases themselves. Who would like to live in a new $500,000 house with a neighbor who has decided to rent his house to 25 low paid workers for 400 per month. We also might not be too happy if someone who is drivng in a car with non-functioning brakes runs into our driver's side door.
Those who still may not be convinced with my anti-low wage immigration arguments should consider taking a long vacation to Columbia, Brazil or South Africa -- where there are huge gaps between rich and poor. The (very) good thing about those countries is that on a pretty modest salary by American standards (perhaps as little as $100,000) you will be able to afford several servants and a very nice house. The negative thing is the poor areas are much more dangerous than any place in America -- and those with money (particularly in Columbia) are targeted for kidnaping (as a legitimate means of making money).
I do not want America to become like these countries. I want any American who wants to work to have a chance to buy a house and a new car every 5 years or so -- whether they choose to go to graduate school and become a business owner or a professor -- or become high school dropouts who learn a trade as a welder or a unionized construction worker. America was like that from 1950 until 1970 or so. It has slipped since, but more so in the past 20 years than the first 20 years of slippage. We were not economically socialistic in 1960 -- it is just that a CEO did not earn that much more than an assembly line worker.
5. Social Security
By definition, social security is conservative. Those who portray it as some investment device omit a huge part of it -- it is social insurance -- so those of us who die young with kids have kids who get a check until they turn 18. It provides disability insurance for those of us who become disabled during our work-life. If you had lots of extra money, it would not make that much sense to "invest" in social security (nor would it make sense to spend more on a life insurance plan or an annuity) -- you could make a much better return on the 'market.'
But, again, this is the point. It is insurance -- not investment or income to be derived from speculation. It is designed to help those who have children under 18, those who become disabled, and those who get older. It is a simple plan with very little overhead -- and it is a safety net -- nothing more.
Will things have to change becuase we are living longer and fewer children are born to productive taxpaying Americans? Yes, they will to some degree either taxes will have to be raised or benefits cut -- or a combination of the two. However, conservatives have been pushing a distortion on that point.
Becuase of what will happen to social security in about 40 years -- someone who now might get a social security check gets $1500 per month, a similar person with similar relative earnings would have to have a check in the amount of perhaps $1200 per month. A good amount less, but still a check of a consequential amount. Taxes could be raised to make up the shortfall -- but since people have known for the past 20 years that social security solvency is being effected by people living longer -- more people have been preparing with 401Ks, IRAs and other retirement savings programs. So while changes will occur, the "disaster" being predicted is a deliberate lie -- one that is not so secretly being promoted by mutual fund companies who would love the management fees that social security would provide them. Like US Health Care bureaucracy as it exists today, if we did this America would end up spending much of retirement funds on the salaries of fund managers rather than with low cost simple accurarial formulae.